"The controversy around Obama is not about race." Responses to the Melissa Harris article.

[Better Believe It]

Here's a few critical responses to the Melissa Harris article "Black President, Double Standard: Why White Liberals Are Abandoning Obama" that appeared in "The Nation". If you have time read the Harris article and other comments posted in "The Nation" comments section that support or may be critical of her opinion piece. BBI

posted by: tiger willow at 09/23/2011 @ 7:36am

Melissa Harris' analysis is not unexpected. She has been an uncritical apologist for Obama from the earliest days of his reign. To compare him on the basis of race to Clinton is absurd. No one runs or gets elected for president of this country without being wholly indebted to the corporatocracy. Race, notwithstanding. I would highly recommend the use of a critical thinking cap, Ms. Harris.

posted by: jonfairbank at 09/23/2011 @ 4:41am

This article missed the mark completely (where is Naomi Klein when we need her). The controversy around Obama is not about race. It's about a candidate who lied to get votes and doesn't have any kind of backbone. He is totally unfit for the office of president. And who ever said that Clinton was a good president. The only good thing he did, compared to Obama, is not prosecute costly and stupid wars. On the negative side, Clinton is responsible for repeal of Glass-Seagal and the destruction of the welfare system, something the Republicans had wanted since the depression. Clinton gave it to them.

posted by: gene90027 at 09/23/2011 @ 2:56am

I don't know what Ms. Harris-Perry is talking about. Firstly, opinion polling shows that no U.S. president since FDR has higher polling numbers among members of his own party at this point in his presidency than Obama does. Secondly, if white lefties are actually abandoning Obama, it's because they're finally sick and tired of centrist policies from Democratic presidents, and because they don't feel any racial bond to Obama like black lefties do.

posted by: sheila62 at 09/22/2011 @ 10:28pm

Race has nothing to do with Obama's problems. Obama sided with Wall Street rather than calling for a full criminal investigation of the financial crimes committed. His stimulus was too small. He bargained away the store when he needed to get unemployment benefits extended, and the Democrats still were in the majority. He has a commission to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and military spending if the debt limit is reached in 2013. The military will see no cuts. Is there any commission to investigate Wall Street? NO, NO, NO commission to bring justice to the American people. Obama is putting pressure on the NYS attorney general to drop his invesigation of Wall Street. The health care plan does not go to the heart of what is wrong with the medical system. He got more customers for insurance companies. He could have gotten the debt ceiling raised in 2010. He should have know how radical the Republicans are. That should be enough for now about why Obama is being abandoned. Obama is weak.

http://www.thenation.com/article/163544/black-president-double-standard-why-white-liberals-are-abandoning-obama

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. Isn't this a call out and/or continuation of another ongoing discussion?

:shrug:

[Cali_Democrat]

72. No

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

149. Of course it is, Cali! Stop the bullshit!

[hfojvt]

2. I think that many of us became Obama supporters in 2008

because we hated Clinton. We did not want another Clinton, and then started to feel betrayed from the moment Obama appointed an almost-all-Clinton cabinet.

I know I became an Obama supporter after Edwards dropped out because I was ABC. Anybody But Clinton.

But this reminds me of the Bush years again. When you cannot defend his policies, go the other way, attack his critics.

[BklnDem75]

3. Ok... Should I care that posters don't agree with her?

Why not post responses from DU? I'm sure they hold the same weight, which isn't much.

[Better Believe It]

8. "Why not post responses from DU? " Done! Your response is posted in this string along with others.

Anything else?

[BklnDem75]

12. I'm talking about a thread

Apparently, you think 'critical' posts from the Nation are worth starting a thread for. As if they would hold more water or something.

[Mr Deltoid]

37. lol

:-)

[Mimosa]

4. K&R Re: Naomi Klein comment in OP: she rocks.

This commentary from The Nation is a distraction. If it was meant to help the President, it won't.

[chill_wind]

51. I think it doesn't get any more thruthful, respectfully civil

in honesty and simpler than that.

:thumbsup:

[avaistheone1]

5. The controversy about Obama is about policy and inaction rather than race.

Obama is to the right of most Americans.

Obama was suppposed to shut down the wars in Iraq, and instead he has started more wars.

Who but Obama would threaten Social Security and Medicaid?

That is a few of the reasons why Obama is unpopular and is in trouble.

[avaistheone1]

18. .

[vaberella]

69. False, false, false. You are completely wrong on this.

Obama is hardly to right of most Americans. Why can you not just say it is definitely Congress that is to the right of most Americans. Obama is not an emperor. He has shared power. He does not make the laws of the land, he enforces it. However, Obama is given and has always been given a rather right wing congress that minimizes a lot of his more progressive moves. He pushed for the PO, but we had people like Landrieu, Lincoln, Bachus, and the like who definitely didn't want it. Lieberman who caucuses with the Dems was adamantly against and he had a vote. So they are the real problem. If you look at Obama's job speech, that is not very Republican, however he does take a conservative approach because these people will vote on the bill. In order to get the required votes he MUST give some Republicans something, or absolutely nothing will get done. THAT is the political environment, that you seemingly choose to ignore, to suggest that Obama is more right wing---he's hardly that--especially with many of the bills he's been able to pass or initiative's he's put forward, even if they don't go through 100%.

The Iraq draw-down is under way. I hate this meme by some leftists. Obama removed 50,000 troops last summer. People barely commented, Rachel Maddow was one of the ones to have a huge segment on it. That left only 50,000 troops in Iraq and most of those troops will be out by next summer with another 20,000 removed by December. He said he would refocus his energy where it counts in Afghanistan, he did that, at the same time that he also committed to a troop draw down which started in July. Libya was not a US war, Libya was a United Nations initiative. So I'm not really sure what other wars he started or you claim he did. Because obviously you didn't mention one.

Who but Obama would threaten Social Security and Medicaid? It was threatened by Republicans from it's inception. So I have no clue what you're talking about. From it's inception, Republicans have been against it and wanting it eliminated. Further more, Obama never threatened it. It was the Left who assumed when Obama said reform is needed, that he meant eliminating it and they were wrong, because countless he has said no---he will not hurt them. But there is no denying that SS, Medicare/Medicaid do need reform. People who suggest otherwise are absolute idiots. People are living longer an that does affect how much money is going into the pool---however the key issue is the affect of fraud in the system and those need to be curtailed. There is nothing wrong in suggesting reform. Even Obama clearly stated what those reforms would be. None of which included "a threat" to these social programs.

All in all your reasons are BS and utterly unfounded.

[Supersedeas]

84. The OP wasn't about 'most Americans,' the focus is restricted to white progressives

The fucus is not even on all liberals...it is just the white ones, only the white ones, as if to say all other liberals may have legitimate grievances, but this group must be racism if they disapprove of the President's policies.

[vaberella]

101. I'm responding to a posters comment, not the OP.

I find a good bit of the OP's posts offensive. Particularly the one that makes it seems as though Black "lefties" are blind buffoons that follow only other Black people----ie suggesting that we don't care about issues but race alone. It seems as though White liberals can decry they are racist by suggesting a rather racialized meme that Black people don't care about anything but race. Sorry to say the OP is full of shit--by the fact of their post. They can make their argument, but the posts they chose themselves are so littered with veiled racial comments it's disturbing. Plus did you read some of the responses to the Harris-Perry posts---it seemed she struck a cord with Liberal racists because a lot of comments were racist or veiled racial comments. It goes to prove that maybe she does have some ground to stand on.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

150. And it's STILL bullshit because MHP *WAS NOT* either explicitly or implicitly

calling ALL WHITE LIBERAL racists!! Jesus, why is this so hard for people to understand!?!?!?

[ProSense]

6. Wow

"It's about a candidate who lied to get votes and doesn't have any kind of backbone. He is totally unfit for the office of president."

"if white lefties are actually abandoning Obama, it's because they're finally sick and tired of centrist policies from Democratic presidents, and because they don't feel any racial bond to Obama like black lefties do."

"That should be enough for now about why Obama is being abandoned. Obama is weak."



These random comments on the Internet sure disprove Perry's point!

Oh, and let's not forget the obligatory bullshit excuse of Clinton.

"And who ever said that Clinton was a good president. The only good thing he did, compared to Obama, is not prosecute costly and stupid wars."

[Robb]

7. "Some of my best friends are black people."

You know, I didn't hold much stock in this notion until I read these responses. Perhaps it's worth revisiting after all.

The louder someone yells "I'm not a bigot, BUT...." the less likely I am to believe them. :shrug:

[whatchamacallit]

9. Wow!

from a mod no less :wow:

[Robb]

10. You don't think it's a conversation worth having?

I'm not talking about the OP, but the responses over on The Nation. Don't they set off your radar in the slightest?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whatchamacallit]

14. I do

Obviously out of the millions of liberals in this country, some could fit this profile. That said, to pretend that the president's record and performance have nothing to do with liberal dissatisfaction, and that closet racism is the real reason, is a slap in the face to a large group who worked to put him in office.

[Robb]

15. I worked to put him in office, and I still think it bears examining.

As Bluenorthwest adroitly illustrated downthread, bigotry is almost never self-recognized.

Edited because I can't spell.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. But you see Robb, I have an issue with calling others bigots

for opposing a man who holds such views in terms of those policies. It is Obama and those who make such arguments that actually hold a jaundiced sort of prejudice against those of us in the only remaining minority group against whom it is legal to discriminate.

[Robb]

27. The biggest mistake *any* of us make

...is to believe we are wholly without prejudice. It is in our actions that we can distinguish or shame ourselves.

And I agree, the notion that "anyone who opposes the man is a bigot" is absurd. But I would be fearful of moving too quickly to dismiss the idea that there is no bigotry in play -- because, as you're well aware, there usually is.

[Bluenorthwest]

35. but you see Robb, I said no such thing at all.

I never even suggested that there is NO bigotry in play. You are scriptwriting, and that is not really cricket. The position I take is not that one at all. I'd never say such a thing. Much less would I need caution to not move too quickly to say such a thing. That characterizes me unfairly. I'd never say such a thing. You made that up. Then argued with it. I'm not fond of that tactic to be honest with you Robb. I speak for myself, you can argue with what I actually say, not what you want to caution me from saying too quickly, which I'd never say in the first place. Backhanded writing Robb, and I do not really think it befits your mod status.

[Robb]

42. Heh. Well, If you truly believe dancing around the obvious subtext is substantively different

...from stating it outright, perhaps pointing fingers vis-a-vis "backhanded writing" might not be the most secure foundation for the high ground. :D

[Bluenorthwest]

43. Whatever Robb

I did not say any of the things you suggested I said. Nor was it in my 'subtext'. I did not say what you are saying here either. You are constructing bullshit and claiming I said it. You are again, in this post, doing nothing but attempt to characterize me using nothing but words you yourself typed.
I'm not repeating this cycle here. And I am also not replying with a characterization of you. The thread can stand. People can read.

[Robb]

44. Sounds fine to me. (nt)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

152. No one's denying that fact! The problem is dismissing ANY notion that

criticism is based--*in part*--on racial bias is what should be discussed.

The fallacy that white liberals can't be racist is as ridiculous as asserting that black liberals can't be homophobic or sexist. We know this not to be true.

Being a liberal DOES NOT exempt one from moral culpability!!

[vaberella]

83. I think it's worth discussing. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

13. My fav: "I'm not a bigot but marriage is for a man and a woman

because I'm a Christian" .

[whatchamacallit]

16. I haven't seen the responses at the Nation

I mistakenly thought you were referring to DUers who took issue with the OP. My bad:hi:

[Robb]

17. No problem; as I read it again I was unclear.

:hi:

[Union Scribe]

20. bleh

[Robb]

21. So no one who objects to be cast as a bigot is a bigot?

That's the equally absurd flip side to what you've just posted.

Edited to add: No need to edit your post, I've a thick skin. :hi:

[Union Scribe]

22. How convenient.

If you disagree that you are what I say you are, it's proof of what I say you are.

[Robb]

23. Not hardly.

It's not "proof" at all. Why do you insist upon oversimplifying an issue as complex as racism?

[Union Scribe]

24. The idea that white critics hate Obama because he's black

and that since some no doubt do his classy supporters can smear all critics with that, that's pretty fucking simplistic itself. And sickening.

And like you said, nothing a person says can remove the shadow of it, so it's kind of a perfect weapon isn't it? If you deny it, well you're just a racist denying being a racist! Works like a charm to shut down discussion.

[ProSense]

28. Talk

"The idea that white critics hate Obama because he's black and that since some no doubt do his classy supporters can smear all critics with that, that's pretty fucking simplistic itself."

...about simplistic!

First, the point of Perry's piece wasn't simply "white critics," it was about those among that group who are abandoning the President while holding him to a double standard. It's not every critic who is white, but some who seem to turn a blind eye to the progress this administration has made (in the face of one of the worse economic crisis, two inherited wars and other factors) while still lauding the Clinton administration for its successes.


Black and Bleak

What a terrible irony this Labor Day that under America's first African-American president, black unemployment has risen to its highest level since the early Reagan years, and decades of black progress on homeownership have been wiped out.

<...>

A rising tide does not necessarily lift all boats, but African-Americans made great economic progress in the late 1990s, when overall unemployment was low. In those years, the black-white wage gap and unemployment gap narrowed. Full employment and tight labor markets are always good medicine.

Bill Clinton was facetiously said to be the first black president, not just because of his comfort level with the black community and his appointment of African Americans to senior positions, but because of this very real material progress -- now largely reversed.

<...>

The problem is less Obama's failure to target black unemployment per se than his weakness on the jobs issue generally. Race comes into the equation because of an almost pathological aversion to conflict on Obama's part, which has been widely attributed to his wish to bridge racial and ideological gaps.

<...>

What the hell does the fact the President's race have to do with African American employment? Again, as I said, this is the same person who wrote an article about deregulation and never mentioned Clinton. He credits Clinton for "very real material progress" for African Americans, and blames Obama for a situation that is a direct result of Clinton's policy of deregulation.

And to Perry's point:

Still others are angry about appalling unemployment rates for black Americans; but while overall unemployment was lower under Clinton, black unemployment was double that of whites during his term, as it is now. And, of course, Clinton supported and signed welfare “reform,” cutting off America’s neediest despite the nation’s economic growth.

[Union Scribe]

31. Okay, let me agree on that guy.

He's a dope. Most Huffpo people are now. While it wasn't necessary or bright to bring in race to that column, he was trying to be deep and profound about race. He failed. Now, what does that have to do with the problem I'm having with this "discussion"? That being, that there's no way for a white critic to opt out of the shadow thrown over all of them, and that's being purposely used to discredit posters here. And yes, that IS going on in that other thread (NOT BY YOU) just as I laid it out: if you object to being lumped in with racists, you're being too defensive and it must've hit a nerve. That is dishonest bullshit and I have a problem with that.

[ProSense]

34. Well

"He's a dope. Most Huffpo people are now. While it wasn't necessary or bright to bring in race to that column, he was trying to be deep and profound about race. He failed. Now, what does that have to do with the problem I'm having with this "discussion"? That being, that there's no way for a white critic to opt out of the shadow thrown over all of them, and that's being purposely used to discredit posters here. And yes, that IS going on in that other thread (NOT BY YOU) just as I laid it out: if you object to being lumped in with racists, you're being too defensive and it must've hit a nerve. That is dishonest bullshit and I have a problem with that."

...we're adults. Why shouldn't this be discussed? That is not the point of the discussion. The only thing being criticized is the double standard, and no one should defend it.

It's not like Kuttner is some guy on the street.

[Union Scribe]

39. I honestly

don't know how to put what I've written in any clearer fashion, and I'm repeating myself too much, so I don't think I've got anything more for this topic. We don't seem to be talking about the same thing here anyway.

[Robb]

29. And yet we discuss it at length.

Which is exactly what we should be doing, every time it's possible. As I said above, denying the possibility that bigotry is in the equation at all is as fruitless as suggesting it's the only factor.

Choosing not to examine this would "shut down discussion," and to all our detriment. :hi:

[jefferson_dem]

33. No.

If you are then you are.

[Number23]

54. Exactly. And I'm particularly fond of the comments from "proud civil rights warriors"

who are disgusted and offended to their VERY CORE(!!!!!) over Harris Perry's comments.

This OP does nothing but prove Harri's Perry's points beautifully. I am really sorry that I already unrec'd it.

[Skittles]

134. you are dissing it based on the RESPONSES???

I mean - come ON

[avaistheone1]

19. Triple wow.

So if one thinks Obama is not doing a good job, and doesn't deserve a second term...you are a bigot!

That is asinine.

[treestar]

26. You can argue all you want

Prove that Clinton got as much crap from the left. I don't recall it being a constant bashing from the left. The bashing was from the right.

[CakeGrrl]

30. I've said before: It's too bad we don't have archives from the Clinton era

PRE-impeachment.

It would have been very interesting to compare the response on the Left as DOMA/DADT, NAFTA, Glass-Stengall, and welfare reform took shape.

[treestar]

36. Exactly - all of those things should have gotten Clinton

the same or worse. For DADT, he should have gotten even more heat than Obama should ever get on LGBT issues. Yet Obama repealed DADT and still gets crap over how it wasn't fast enough!

I do remember some articles in the Nation criticizing Clinton from the left - but those were dignified articles about some fine points of policy.

But nothing like we've seen on DU for so long.

[Supersedeas]

158. some of the substance and specifics that MHP could have include to support her accusation

that white liberals are racists.

Epistemologically, evidence can be so silly sometimes.

[frylock]

46. prove clinton WOULDN'T have received as much crap if the internet were as widely available then

[treestar]

49. It was

There were list serves by the late 1990s. Usenet groups.

[frylock]

56. no kidding, hunh?

and it was widely available? how many people had internet service and used list serve at that time? cmon.

[Bjorn Against]

96. Read a Michael Moore book from the Clinton era

Michael Moore went after Clinton pretty hard, and his views represented those of many on the left. Also don't forget the Nader campaign in 2000, while technically Nader ran against Gore it was a direct response to the Clinton Presidency, the Nader campaign could not have gained so much traction if there was not significant frustration with the Clinton administration from the left. Read what the left was saying about Clinton in regards to the Iraq sanctions, NAFTA, DOMA, and many other issues. Clinton never got a free ride from the left.

[Mr Deltoid]

145. Why are Obama supporters so obsessed with Bill Clinton?

I will never understand it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

153. Because Clinton supporters are so obsessed with Obama.

I will never understand it.

[jefferson_dem]

32. Some of my best friends are ...

FAIL.

[Bobbie Jo]

38. *yank* *yank*

Unrec.

[Supersedeas]

40. Harris Perry comes right out and said it--white liberals are guilty of electoral racism

if they hold this President to a higher standard.

"...disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them..."

'them' meaning progressive whities?

No, MHP seems to be saying, the 2008 ballot box did not forgive your white sins--but the 2012 ballot box is waiting?

Anyone else find the word choice here a bit odd?

[SidDithers]

41. Unrec..

SSDD.

Sid

[Ikonoklast]

45. "I'm not Black, but my Black friend said...."

To unrec this steaming pile.

[Dokkie]

79. I am black and am going to rec this post

How Melissa Harris can accuse someone of being a bigot because he/she doesnt support the rightwing policies of our anti gay marriage president is beyond me. If anything we black after the history we have lived through should be more tolerant of other minority groups and their desire for marriage equality.

This black guy is disappointed in Obama because of his policies and not his skin color

[ProSense]

89. Well

"I am black and am going to rec this post"

...being black doesn't make you right. How anyone can rec this insulting piece of garbage is beyond me. Some of the comments in the OP are downright racist!

[vaberella]

108. Hell to the yes. n/t

[Fuddnik]

112. I'm going to rec it too.

[Dokkie]

128. very true

But I was replying to the post above that had the same theme. He was unreccing for his black friend and then I said what I said about reccing as a black guy.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

154. I am a black woman who is very proud of her gay black father and fully support this president

who I believe really does support marriage equality! Sorry, but I really believe that, as opposed to President Perry/Romney who are/are creaming his pants to uphold DOMA and keep the marriage ban intact at the federal level.

Fuck that noise, jack. I'm willing to take my chances with the president. And if we give him a progressive majority--not just 60 Democratic votes, but 60 *PROGRESSIVE* Democratic votes--I am 100% confident that DOMA is done!!! No more Joe LIEberman's! No more Blanche Lincoln's! No more Max Baucus's! Amy Klobachar's! Jim Webb's! or Joe Manchins!!

You want to see a progressive agenda? Then, give the president a progressive Congress and see the winds of change right before your eyes!!

[Dokkie]

129. very true

But I was replying to the post above that had the same theme. He was unreccing for his black friend and then I said what I said about reccing as a black guy.

[Autumn]

47. Recommended

It's his policies I don't like. I don't care about his skin color.

[Better Believe It]

50. I don't agree with many of Obama's policies but I like his skin color!

The election of the first African-American President was an historic and progressive event.

If Obama were an authentic progressive/liberal on most major issues that would have been even better!

[Bobbie Jo]

57. "authentic"

Good Lord....please stop. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Fuddnik]

114. Awww, come on and admit it......

You've got a white robe and hood in your closet. Right nest to your Obama voodoo doll.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: Shouldn't be necessary, but this place is getting weird lately.

[Supersedeas]

157. You can say that again.

[jaxx]

48. Odd that racism can't be discussed rationally.

It's there, it's not in everyone, but it is there in many people. Instead I see a bunch of "I didn't do it".....but. Face it, the President is a man who is an African American. He was yesterday and he will be tomorrow. Concentrate on the man. Ask whites why they are changing their minds, and look for answers that matter...not the 'he done me wrong' crap, but real answers. There is absolutely no reason to bring up race when discussing the President with people who have decided they don't like him....unless the underlying reason is race and it is staring you in the face. Don't let it by like it doesn't matter, it does. If you see racism, address it. Melissa Harris-Perry did and she is being excoriated for doing so. Why?

I know other groups who want civil rights will agree that this is not the way to get it to happen. In refusing to admit any wrong doing, it gives real bigots the upper hand. I'm not looking for excuses, I'm looking for President Obama to win in 2012, because when he wins we all win. When people put themselves over the good of all it's like the republican party putting itself over the good of the country. And none of us want to go there.

[Number23]

60. Why, indeed?

Don't let it by like it doesn't matter, it does. If you see racism, address it. Melissa Harris-Perry did and she is being excoriated for doing so. Why?

It is there. And no, it's not in everyone. I don't think anyone black has EVER said that, and MHP certainly did not in her piece.

But the immediate howls of "she's calling me a RACIST!!" drown out every damn discussion on race, not only on DU but throughout our society. Race can never be discussed honestly. Black people are just supposed to sit by and hum quietly I guess while our community is told that we only support this president because he's black. (Coincidentally, these same folks are EVER so quick to point out every single poll that shows a drop in the president's black support. "OMG!! It's down to only 85% now!!!" :eyes: or every single black person who doesn't support this president while blithely ignoring the 25 million that do.)

Any and everything can be said about our community. I have seen shit on DU that has scarred me for life, and just about every black poster and tuned in white poster here knows what I'm talking about and from whom. And as far as I know, the majority of posts on DU are from self-described liberals, so the tack of only attributing racism to conservatives does not apply.

Apparently black people in America are supposed to be talked AT or PAST, never TO or WITH. So GOD HELP US ALL when black people actually turn the tables and point out that this country is full of white people who's shit doesn't smell like roses either. Then the rallying cry of the clueless and ill-informed ("RACE BAITER!" and "PLAYING THE RACE CARD!") takes full stage.

[Better Believe It]

61. So do you also think that most male progressives who didn't support Hillary Clinton were sexists?

And that is the real "hidden" reason for their opposition, not political differences.

[Number23]

62. That ain't really the damn point, now is it?

So do you also think that most male progressives who didn't support Hillary Clinton were sexists?

Do I think that ALL or even MOST male progressives that didn't support Hillary were sexist? NO. Do I think that SOME were afflicted by sexism? Hell yes.

It appears that only liberals have put themselves on this pedestal and convinced themselves they don't exhibit the type of behaviors that afflict so many other members of a great nation. No one else seems to be under this illusion.

And see, that's the difference between those who have been on the receiving end of discrimination and those who haven't. I don't rule out for ONE SECOND that racism could be behind a significant portion of liberal angst surrounding this president. Not for ONE SECOND. But neither do I believe for ONE SECOND that ALL of the criticism leveled at him is due to racism.

There is certain behavior that leads me to wonder, however. When I see people who are so invested in minimizing this president that lists of his achievements on issues are maligned and sneered at, THAT'S the type of behavior that makes me wonder. (ProSense could write a book on how her lists have been treated as well as the absurdly stupid bias against her "blue links" as though she has any control over what color her links are.) When I see people say that he should think/believe/act a certain way "because he's black," THAT'S the kind of thinking that make me wonder.

And I firmly believe that you can hold racially naive/insensitive/even stupid ideas and not be a racist, per se. Alot of racism boils down to a lack of understanding and education.

There are plenty of other behaviors that makes me wonder too. But I don't have an entire month to devote to all of the shady behavior and comments that set off my Racial Radar. :)

[Better Believe It]

73. So you also don't rule out that sexism could be behind a significant portion of progressive .......

opposition to Hillary Clinton and not disagreement with her policies?

Is that right?

[ClarkUSA]

76. When did Hillary become President in your universe? She never made it here.

:rofl:

[Number23]

77. Please see the subject heading of post #62

[Better Believe It]

100. So you agree that the great majority of "Obama critics" are not racists. Is that right?

If that's your bottom line why do you go on and on and on about the alleged racism of Obama critics since that really isn't much of a factor at all behind critical policy opinions?

Your posts seem to really represent an awfully weak and lame attempt to discredit white progressives by employing a bogus racism card in my not so humble opinion.

That's something we saw some guilt ridden "ultra-left" sectarian white radicals engage in back in the 60's and 70's.

They beat up on themselves and others for the racist sins of their parents or white race and thought white racism was almost a natural part of being white!!!!

I don't have any white progressive friends who are racists that want to oppress and exploit Black people.

If you do, you need change who you hang out with.

[ClarkUSA]

104. Stop distorting Number 23's words to build another lame strawman argument.

Number 23 said:

"I don't rule out for ONE SECOND that racism could be behind a significant portion of liberal angst surrounding this president. Not for ONE SECOND. But neither do I believe for ONE SECOND that ALL of the criticism leveled at him is due to racism."

[Bobbie Jo]

107. Key word...

"another"

Of the lame variety, that is.

[Number23]

125. What will the OP do if he's not able to distort and twist the truth?

Are we all supposed to pretend that's not what he does here every single day?

But this part of his post made me chuckle:

I don't have any white progressive friends who are racists that want to oppress and exploit Black people.

I'll keep my personal thoughts as to why that may be to myself. :rofl: But you know what they say about looking to your left and looking to your right... :rofl: :rofl:

But really, I'll be damned if I've seen a single person in this thread or on DU as a whole make that statement he's claming. You're being very generous to refer to it as a strawman. Where I come from, we'd just call it a bald faced lie and be done with it.

[Number23]

124. If you have to try this hard to completely distort and lie about what I've written

then darling YOU are the one with the weak argument. Not me.

You cherry pick these asinine, really revolting posts out of some of the most ignorant, racist comments to an article that I've seen in a long time, and get your ass called on that several times which of course you don't bother responding to.

And then you turn around and blatantly lie about what I've written as if what I've written is not RIGHT HERE in this thread for the entire world to see. Damn, if I didn't know better, I'd swear you had some type of agenda or something!

[Better Believe It]

136. I haven't posted any "racist comments" as you claim. So quit playing the race card.

That dog won't hunt here.

People can and have objectively read your posts and drawn the same conclusion I have reached.

And that is you clearly do have an agenda.

And that agenda aims to smear any white progressive who disagrees with Obama's policies as some sort of racist with a hidden right-wing agenda!

Stop doing that!

If you persist in such low-level personal attacks against DU'ers I shall have to put you on ignore.

[Bobbie Jo]

137. Oh Please...

Who the hell are you to speak for "here?"

Funny you should mention the word "agenda." Twice, no less. Your AGENDA has been sufficiently established.

People can and have objectively read YOUR POSTS (copy/paste efforts, that is) and drawn the same conclusion I have reached.

You are an instigator, and divisive beyond belief.

btw....can you form a post without using the word "progressive?" A little overdone, IMO.....

[Number23]

138. Put me on ignore! I'd welcome that with open arms

And where did I say you posted "racist comments?" You are so determined to prove your "innocence" that you're screaming your guilt! And thank you for posting the phrase "the race card." There has not been a person that I've ever come across, in all my years of life, having lived on four continents that has used that phrase that was NOT a racist idiot.

As for an agenda, you think that you're subtle? You think everyone on this board doesn't know what you're about and what you're up to?? You're either incredibly stupid or... can't think of what the other option may be.

[Better Believe It]

140. You clearly prefer to engage in personal attacks against progressive DU'ers rather than civil debate

Your obvious attempts to intimidate white progressives by claiming those who disagree with you and Obama's policies are racists just won't fly here. Since you have failed to post a DU profile would I be correct in believing you're probably a guilt ridden white person pretending to be some sort of crusading anti-racist liberal?

Your constant personal attacks on DU'ers gave me no choice but to put you on ignore.

If you prefer trash talk over civil debate you may want to consider leaving here and posting your rants on some discussion board that encourages trash talk.

Bye.

[Number23]

142. "Your constant attacks gave me no choice but to put you on ignore"

Are you channeling Scarlet O'Hara or Blanche Dubois right here?

1) You act as though I would give Damn Number 1 about you putting me on ignore. I don't. Truly.
2) I have not made any constant attacks on white progressives. Type it a million more times, and it still won't be true.
3) You act as though people cannot read what I've written in this thread. You are also ignoring everyone who has condemned this disgusting OP as well as your really pathetic attempts to mischaracterize what I've written as if no one else can see them.
4) And most importantly -- YOU ACT AS THOUGH YOU HAVE ANY CREDIBILITY ON THIS BOARD. Darling, that ship has sailed, come back and is sitting in the harbor.

"Would I be correct in believing you're probably a guilt ridden white person pretending to be some sort of crusading anti-racist liberal." Your guess is very much in line with every other word you've posted in this thread and on this web site over the years. Which is to say, completely wrong, tone deaf, and indicative of someone with the observation skills of a newborn blind mole rat. You genuinely could not POSSIBLY be any more wrong with your "belief."

See ya! Damn sure wouldn't wanna be ya!

[melissaf]

146. If the shoe don't fit, don't wear it.

If you don't like Obama and also don't believe you're a racist, then no one's talking about you, are they? Maybe take a look around and find someone who might fit the criteria that Harris-Perry is describing. Or do all progressives have to think alike to join the club?

[SidDithers]

155. How many of your posts start out with "So you"...

And then create a fictional version of what the poster was actually saying. Falsely reframing an opponents point is such a grade-school debate tactic.

It's fun to watch you do it though.

Sid

[EffieBlack]

63. +1000

I could not have said it better myself. Thank you!

[lumberjack_jeff]

147. The issue here isn't denial of racism... in general,

The issue is rationalizing Obama's diminishing liberal support on that basis.

Is it more insulting to tell the black community that they support Obama because he's black, or to tell white liberals that they're abandoning him because they just noticed he's not white.

The circular firing squad is now equipped with bayonets.

[Supersedeas]

86. What rational discussion?

You pose a good starting point: ask white progressives whey they are changing their minds about the President.

Wait for the answers, and then if those answers sound similar to the reasons voiced by black progressives, then what happens to the racist presumption.

Why react to the Harris-Perry article?
Because, she does not start where you start...with a question. She begins with a conclusion about race without asking ever the question, without ever noting the reservations of black progressives, without waiting (there's the key) waiting from the response and then comparing those answers with the objections of other progressives.

Why are folks reacting to the Perry article?
Because it begins and ends with a racist conclusion. Between the two, there is a clear misstatement of fact. Progressives of multiple colors changed their perspective on the Clinton presidency, not because of his race, but because of his policy decisions. Progressives are reacting to the current President (who promised hope and change--something Clinton didn't do) no different than how they reacted to some of Clinton's 'centrist' policy decisions. So, when you remove that premise from Perry's article, what are we left with--and attempt to marginalize progressive whities--in the words of the Administration: the 'professional left.' Are white progressives supposed to react glowingly to the attempts trivialize the policy reservations of the progessive movement by folks like Harris-Perry who label such reservations as nothing more than the rantings of a white hooded racist? Yeah, we feel the glow.

[jaxx]

102. I'm one of those 'progressive whities'.

Did you stop to think she has most likely already asked the questions and is writing on what she saw? Instead people here suddenly are off like a rocket thinking it's all about them. Just like the 'professional left' you cite, just like Rahm's misinterpreted comment. What is it with taking everything personally? Are people that put upon that they must line up and equate themselves with anything remotely suggesting someone might be wrong?

If you feel the glow, ask yourself why. I don't feel it at all.

[Supersedeas]

148. I found MHP's follow-up discussion revealing

Especially in light of your response that "she has already asked the questions" to justify her belief about racist white liberals.

It is not often that college academics declare that evidence and justification are silly--but that's what she did. Touche.

I don't know who is suggesting that the article was about them--the article was 'about' a broad unspecified swath of people, namely white liberals as a group. It tickles me that the response by those who dare engage in discussion of MHP's charges against an entire group are summarily dismissed with "it's not about you...it's not about anyone in particular" -- well, duh, isn't that the point!

[Number23]

52. Oh my GOD

It's about a candidate who lied to get votes and doesn't have any kind of backbone. He is totally unfit for the office of president.

But no, it's not about race!!! :crazy: :crazy:

You could not have provided more fitting descriptions of exactly the type of BS that Harris Perry was talking about. Although I know it was entirely unwittingly done on your part, well done! Really, well done!

[bigwillq]

53. I think that's one of the issues with the right.

I don't think it's as much of an issue with the left. I think for some on the left, there issue with Obama transcends race.

[Number23]

55. I've just read the majority comments on this piece

It is very interesting that this is the lot you've decided to hitch your wagon to.

[vaberella]

68. Of course...one post even touches directly on Race...but oh right.."race actually plays no role"

Shit post. But I'm not surprised.

[blkmusclmachine]

58. I didn't abandon the WH:

It abandoned me. All to get the Teabagger vote.

[jaxx]

59. If you think you were singled out, how important are you?

To be abandoned there must be a connection.

[Mr Deltoid]

65. Don't have to be singled out

Just have to be left of center right.

[jaxx]

66. We're all left of center right.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

64. Happy to unrecc this bullshit!! n/t

[vaberella]

70. Ditto. n/t

[vaberella]

67. Why are you posting this here? One of the ones you posted is utterly insulting.

This statement in particular..."because they don't feel any racial bond to Obama like black lefties do."


Why do you think this is news worthy.

[Bobbie Jo]

74. Even more disturbing....

Apparently they were hand-picked. Interesting selection.

[vaberella]

81. Exactly. S/he put it in BOLD--suggesting it's a favorite one. I'm ALERTING this thread. n/t

[seaglass]

119. Do you disagree with Prof. Kennedy's take?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/books/the-persistence-of-the-color-line-by-randall-kennedy-review.html

"Mr. Kennedy is, deep down, an admirer of the president’s. (Mr. Obama, a Harvard Law graduate, signed up for, but did not ultimately take, one of Mr. Kennedy’s courses.) When he lists the many things black people love best about the president, it’s apparent that he’s speaking for himself as well. Among these reasons: Mr. Obama identifies himself as black, when he could have, like Tiger Woods, spoken of himself as mixed race; he married a black woman, while other powerful black men often marry white ones; he is dignified, “the most well-spoken, informed, gracious, cosmopolitan, agile, and thoughtful politician on the American political landscape.”

Mr. Kennedy observes, “In the hearts and minds of most black Americans — indeed, the overwhelming mass of African-Americans — Barack Obama is the most admired person in the canon of black celebrity and accomplishment, surpassing Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Booker T. Washington, W. E. B. Du Bois, Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali, Rosa Parks, Thurgood Marshall and even Martin Luther King Jr.” "

[rury]

71. Believe me when I say IT"S ABOUT RACE!!!!!

But I don't expect the haters and racists to admit it.
They'll lie to us and themselves EVEN behind the anonymity of the keyboard.
We blacks are ALWAYS held to a higher standard.
Only white presidents are allowed to be mediocre.

OBAMA 2012!!!!!!!!

[Supersedeas]

87. ...allowed to be mediocre. So, demanding more than mediocre

is the definition of racism.

Shouldn't we expect more from any political candidate who promises 'hope and change?' Or are such progressive expectations really just indicators of what haters and racists do--they hope for change that is better than the same disappointments of the past.

Definitions, they are a-changing.

Here's something to chew on if you are interested in a rational discussion:

http://yourblackworld.com/2011/05/21/melissa-harris-perrys-attacks-on-cornel-west-melissa-are-you-hiding-something/

<<These criticisms of West are peculiar and ironic for a couple of reasons. First, it dismisses the responsibility of those who are critical of the professor to come up with clear evidence to prove that West is wrong. After all, it’s hard to check the Whitehouse.gov website to find much evidence that the Obama Administration has done very much to end racial inequality or fight mass incarceration. Sure, there are other presidential priorities, but if the black vote matters for reelection, then black voters should not have to be enthusiastic about perpetuating the very systems that lead to their own suffering. Additionally, the administration’s decision to allow for large gaps of time between meetings with the Congressional Black Caucus also undermines their ability to prove that West is wrong.

Secondly, the criticism is interesting because one might be able to easily argue that the accuser is as guilty as the accused for allowing personal biases to taint his/her perceptions of West and his remarks. While Professor Harris-Perry can readily cite the close interactions between Professor West and President Obama, she doesn’t mention that she herself worked down the hall from Professor West at Princeton University. When a person goes out of their way to strategically, systemically and obsessively target a colleague that they worked with every day for a number of years, one has to wonder what sour intentions lie behind the motivations of the attacker.>>

[rury]

75. I accidentally recced this piece of garbage OP when I meant to

unrec!

[Douglas Carpenter]

78. I think some people may have assumed him to be more left than he is in part because he is black

If they had been paying a bit attention to his actual record and paying a bit more attention to what he was actually saying even from his first national debut speech in 2004 -they would have realized that he was coming from the same essential ideological wing of the Party as Clinton. I don't know if one can call that racism. Since within progressive circles being more left-wing is viewed as a positive attribute. But it was to some degree presuming an ethnic stereotype - even if was considered by some a positive ethnic stereotype.

The truth of the matter is that when an economy is perceived as doing well - the incumbent president almost always becomes very popular and almost always wins reelection. When an economy is perceived as doing poorly - the incumbent president almost always becomes very unpopular and almost always losses reelection. This dynamic has little to do with whether the incumbent is pursing left-wing policies, right-wing policies or centrist policies. There have been rare exceptions. But this is the dynamic that is usually plays out. One can argue about which polices are best and which policies are more farsighted. But one cannot really argue about which ones will assure the president and his party of popularity and which ones are more likely to assure reelection. That is largely determined by matters beyond their control. Some progressives might argue that had the stimulus package been two or three times the size - the economy might have been jump started and the economy might be showing more signs of improvement by this point. But predicting long term economic matters is about as reliable as predicting long term weather forecast. We just don't know. Nobody knows. There are simply too many variables.

[vaberella]

80. Are you trying to tell me that people assume he's Left because he's Black?

Then these people are NOT Black or they don't know Black people. Which further tells me this is about race. Black people are a massive group of different people. Caribbean Blacks are by and large Conservative---ditto for some Africans. They don't trust government for many reasons. To presume all Black people are left or more left than normal---is false. Very false. Shoot, many Blacks can be labeled Bluedogs by and large who vote Dem.

[Douglas Carpenter]

85. obviously you are right about the stereotype being completely off base

,,,,but nonetheless - there is a stereotype partially reinforced by the reality that African-Americans have in past decades voted overwhelmingly Democratic and many of the most prominent civil rights era leaders were usually on the political left. I suppose it is a bit like other stereotypes that might sound positive like, "gays have refined taste" or "Latinos all come from big loving families." Many people do not realize that even stereotypes that might sound positive are still gross over-generalizations that can give people a completely misguided picture of reality.

But whatever the reasons - and there are others reasons beside race - of course - Clearly many people on the left thought quite incorrectly that then Sen. Obama was considerably more left-wing than either his record or an examination of his words would have supported. Coming from that angle is where we see much of the disappointment on the left - disappointment that was not grounded in a realistic view of the candidate from the beginning as well as an unrealistic understanding of the prevailing political dynamics at play within the Democratic Party.

[vaberella]

90. Actually no...

it could be b/c they want to exercise their vote and recognize the rejection from the Republican party. My mother for instance is more Republican than Dem, but votes Dem because she says Republicans don't like Black people. But she's always been conservative leaning---when in the US. She's a big liberal people supporter like Castro and Chavez.

[polichick]

82. Even Melissa Harris-Perry gets it wrong once in a while.

As I posted in a related discussion, this "white liberal" became fed up with the prez for capitulating to corporations and the Republicans. Period.

He's fighting for Democratic principles now - that's what I voted for.

k&r

[ProSense]

93. She is not wrong.

Quotes from the OP:

"To compare him on the basis of race to Clinton is absurd."

"It's about a candidate who lied to get votes and doesn't have any kind of backbone. He is totally unfit for the office of president. "

" if white lefties are actually abandoning Obama, it's because they're finally sick and tired of centrist policies from Democratic presidents, and because they don't feel any racial bond to Obama like black lefties do."

Not only are some of those comments disgusting, one is downright racist!

First, the point of Perry's piece wasn't simply white critics, it was about those among that group who are abandoning the President while holding him to a double standard. It's not every critic who is white, but some who seem to turn a blind eye to the progress this administration has made (in the face of one of the worse economic crisis, two inherited wars and other factors) while still lauding the Clinton administration for its successes.

Case in point: Black and Bleak

What a terrible irony this Labor Day that under America's first African-American president, black unemployment has risen to its highest level since the early Reagan years, and decades of black progress on homeownership have been wiped out.

<...>

A rising tide does not necessarily lift all boats, but African-Americans made great economic progress in the late 1990s, when overall unemployment was low. In those years, the black-white wage gap and unemployment gap narrowed. Full employment and tight labor markets are always good medicine.

Bill Clinton was facetiously said to be the first black president, not just because of his comfort level with the black community and his appointment of African Americans to senior positions, but because of this very real material progress -- now largely reversed.

<...>

The problem is less Obama's failure to target black unemployment per se than his weakness on the jobs issue generally. Race comes into the equation because of an almost pathological aversion to conflict on Obama's part, which has been widely attributed to his wish to bridge racial and ideological gaps.

<...>

What the hell does the fact the President's race have to do with African American employment? He credits Clinton for "very real material progress" for African Americans, and blames Obama for a situation that is a direct result of Clinton's deregulation policies.

This is the same person who wrote an article about deregulation and never once mentioned Clinton. Kuttner, 2007: The Bubble Economy

How does one write an entire article about financial deregulation without mentioning Clinton's name once?

In fact, it wasn't until Wall Street reform was being debated that Clinton's role in repealing Glass-Steagall got mention.

More from Kuttner: Obama's Loyal Opposition

Progressives now find themselves in an awkward position of simultaneously wishing Barack Obama well, but feeling dismayed by his policies on some key issues, most notably the banking bailout. If this were a normal economic situation, the posture of semi-opposition would not be that big a deal. We would simply gratefully accept the decent policies and keep pressing for bolder ones. But a failure to revive the banking system would be Obama's Vietnam. It would wreck everything else.

<...>

This was April 2009! What policies enacted in the first three months, when the administration was still ramping up, is this dismay based on?

The narrative of a failed Presidency even before it took off. Kuttner was pushing his book, A Presidency in Peril, even as a historic health care reform act was on the verge of being signed into law. In December 2009, he and others were pondering what a defeat of such a bill would mean for the President.

There were reports in March and July of 2009 writing him off. It has always been a self-fulling prophecy. Certain people decided long before the President accomplished anything that they were going to brand him as weak and as caving. Greg Sargent once pointed out that he disagreed with this strategy. The problem with it is that it's easy to do, and can be accomplished even if everyone isn't coming from the same POV. Those determined to tear down the President will jump on any criticism or actual progressive activism (Carville telling the President to sound like a Democrat) to justify their actions.

Any action that doesn't go far enough is a "cave." Anything not yet accomplished is a broken promise. Anything debunked or put in the accomplishment category is met with a new goal post.

If you declared the President a failure in March 2009, you have little to no credibility.

The question is: if this is just "loyal opposition," an attempt to move the President left, why are they abandoning him?

And to Perry's point:

Still others are angry about appalling unemployment rates for black Americans; but while overall unemployment was lower under Clinton, black unemployment was double that of whites during his term, as it is now. And, of course, Clinton supported and signed welfare “reform,” cutting off America’s neediest despite the nation’s economic growth.

People are always apologizing for anyone who points to Obama's race (Moore, West, Cleaver, Nader), but try to discuss the implications of why some people are unwilling to give the President a chance while excusing Clinton, and suddenly the subject is taboo.

Yes, some are black, and they do it in the context of being African Americans, doesn't make it right. Still, some of the President's critics don't seem to have a problem with references to the President's race when it's used to criticize him.

Perry hit a nerve, and I'm damn glad she wrote this piece.

[polichick]

141. You're entitled to your opinion - and you haven't changed mine.

[boomerbust]

88. Here is what pisses this White Liberal off about Obama

During the Wisconsin fracas, the only comment made by Obama was this and I quote, "It looks like union busting to me". Then during his I stand with labor bus tour he made it obvious by staying outside the borders of Wisconsin and visiting every border state except Wisconsin. Ya, I'll probably vote for Obama next year, Ms. Harris don't come up here and give me your take on White Liberal racism. You are way off base.

[vaberella]

91. False. Wisconsin union fighters spefically said they did not want Obama involved.

They felt his intrusion would derail the political movement to be about Obama versus the Republican. They said this all the bloody time. Even while Ed was riling for Obama to get into he mess, which Obama initially did get involved by sending in some of his people and speaking on it. Wisconsin union leaders relayed to congressional Dems to tell Obama to back off---because Republicans were saying Obama was riling he people and it was no a people's movement. Even the Congressional Dems said this when interviewed.

So for you to sell this like that Obama stayed out as though he forgot union people is absurd. Didn't you see many of the rallies with Union workers, majority had posters in support of Obama, NOT anti-Obama. Only on DU was this meme that Wisconsin people upset with Obama. Not to mention I spoke to a lot of Wisconsin people, some who posted on here and other sites who were happy Obama was staying out of it. Now you're selling me BS.

I find your arguments off base.

[boomerbust]

94. Fine

I also recall many Wisconsin DUERS asking this Question, "Where the fuck is Obama". Of course now that the unions are officialy busted he is here to continue the fight.

[ProSense]

95. Wisconsin

"I also recall many Wisconsin DUERS asking this Question, "Where the fuck is Obama". Of course now that the unions are officialy busted he is here to continue the fight."

...is not Obama's fucking fault. Period.

Electing an asshole Governor caused the problem. Beyond removing the Governor, how the fuck was the President going to change what happened?

Here's something the President did have control over, but I don't see anyone stuck on the Wisconsin meme jumping up and down about this success.

<...>

"Two years ago GM and Chrysler were hanging by a thread when President Obama stepped in and invested federal funds to help turn the companies and the U.S. auto industry around, protect the auto supplier base and keep good-paying jobs in America," King added.

link

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

151. I remember Obama literally BEGGING people not to sit on their laurels

and allow Republicans to control state and local governments. That didn't happen. And when the result ended up being more Republicans controlling state legislatures and Republican governors, ya'll expected Obama to swoop in save you? I don't blame him for not showing up. The voters didn't do their part. This is a two-way street! People get mad because they didn't vote. We lose good progressives like Russ Feingold. And somehow after rejecting the president, people expected him to show his face in Wisconsin? For real?

[Bjorn Against]

98. I was in Madison and many union fighters did want Obama there

Not everyone wanted him to come, but a very large number did. Obama's decision not to come was his decision, there were a lot of people who had hoped he would come.

As much as you may want to believe the ideas you just expressed were universally held among Wisconsin protesters, I was there and I can assure you that there were thousands who felt differently.

[vaberella]

99. Actually a large number did not based on the those who came on Ed's show.

Not to mention the Congressional Democrats who went on air and said they did not want the President there. I'd assume the union leaders would be speaking on behalf of a good portion of their people.

Actually his decision not to come was based on a few factors. The mere fact that when Obama did send in reps from his grassroots program down there...the media shifted the story from being about the protests to being about Obama and his fight against republicans. Turning the issue more about partisan ship than about the real issue which was the people. This was early on. There were posts all over DU of the grassroots people Obama sent down to Wisconsin and then the eventual back fire. Due tot his back fire----and by the advisement of the congressional democrats from Wisconsin who had fled---along with Wisconsin Union leaders and AFL-CIO leader Trumka, me believes---Obama backed off. I believe there were even polls taken at the time in Wisconsin which showed that many people did not want Obama getting involved in the situation. This was mainly an issue between Union worers, Wisconsin citizens, and their Governor.

This was very well documented. The way people make it seem as though Obama wasn't going to be there for union leaders and the middle class is absurd. I'm sure you were there..and I spoke and listened to many of them being interviewed, it seemd to be a decision to make sure this is grassroots and make the movement have it's relevance---that may have gone against the best wishes of many of the protestors---but definitely expressed by their representatives. Not to mention Obama did give verbal support to the Wisconsin movement and those going on across the country at the time. He did not physically descend upon Wisconsin, but he did express support---which earned him a great deal of backlash from Republicans and the Media.

I don't think that's deniable.

Additionally and on a side note. The Wisconsin issue annoyed the shit out of me. This was the citizens who voted for this asshole of a governor. I wrote a few threads on this. They did this to themselves. They weren't lied too. This guy had a record when he was mayor. Some of the issue happened because some people chose to listen without checking his record, others wanted to punish Dems or Obama, and others just don't vote unless it's the GE. This was their problem and I liked that they worked hard to work against it. I really don't think the President should have even gotten involved. This man's record showed he hated Unions. When you look at his record---and I think all voters need to make a conscience decision when they make votes. They need to really study and vet their candidates. Unfortunately the Wisconsin voters obviously did not for various reasons and dug their own grave here. Do I blame the citizens? Yeah, they are the voters. The man wasn't born into his power, he was voted in. There fore they bare the responsibilty. Again, there is no doubt that Wisconsin has worked extremely hard to remedy this situation---but this is not the fault of Obama where the President in some way will be able to cure all. Obama can reject the idea of denying people the right for collective bargaining. He did that, several times. He can express his support for the rights of union workers. He did that. But what more did people in Wisconsin want him to do. Go down there and physically march with them...yes Obama said that in a quote---but I think when faced in a reality of a situation it's almost absurd to put the President there. Added to that, it would turn the entire event into a fiasco.

Liberals and Conservatives alike would have said Obama was doing photo-ops and he wasn't sincere and blach blah blah. Everyone very well knows this. Then the entire issue would definitely not be about Wisconsin, Union rights or the governor and it would be about the president Grandstanding in Wisconsin and that's all it would be. I personally would have wanted more for people fro Wisconsin.

I think the President, if he went down there would be more so a detriment than a panacea.

[Bjorn Against]

111. I never said that there were not many people who did not, I said there were many who did

People in Wisconsin were generally split on whether or not he should come, you framed it as if the people in Wisconsin did not want him and the only way you can say that is if you ignore a huge chunk of the people in Wisconsin.

It is ridiculous to blame the people fighting Walker in Wisconsin for their own predicament, most people in this country end up with someone "representing" them in government that is a truly horrible person at some time or other. Wisconsin progressives can not win every election, I wish they could but the system is not set up in our favor. The system favors candidates like Scott Walker and gives them lots of money and media support, it is not the fault of the people of Wisconsin that our political system is set up in a way that is very advantageous to corporate candidates like Walker.

[vaberella]

117. Actually...let's think on this.

True enough...they were split. However the union leaders and congressional leaders all agreed that he should not have come. And I find them to be by and large a strong representation of the people because they helped a great deal with organizing or inspiring organization.

If the number of people who came to protest against Walker all across Wisconsin and who supported workers rights voted...do you really think Wisconsin would have had Walker as a representative? I don't think so. Before Walker, Wisconsin had a Democratic Governor. Which says there must have been something else at play here. And again, if his record was closely scrutinized I don't think the people who voted to elect him would have done so. Well not in such a strong majority. I'm not going to agree that the system is set up in a way to support people like walker. The recalls alone---and then with the gaining of 3 seats and the fact the previous governor was a Democrat---suggests that to be false.

[Bjorn Against]

118. Two words to prove my point about how the system is set up to benefit people like Walker:

Citizens United.

[vaberella]

120. Again, proven wrong in 2006. n/t

[Bjorn Against]

121. Get your facts straight, Citizen's United did not exist in 2006

[JTFrog]

92. The fucking blind keep leading the blind.

Obviously Skinner and friends have no idea how to put the genie back in the bottle after unleashing the new DU.

:shrug:

[Puglover]

97. Harris finishes her article with:

" If he is, it may be possible to read that result as the triumph of a more subtle form of racism."

And I think it also may be possible to derive profundity from the cracks on the wall.

I think Obama faces rascism on so many levels in so many places that looking for it among his supporters albeit critics is somewhat silly.

Normally I like Melissa alot but I think she is reaching with this one.

[Akoto]

103. They want to be pissed? Get pissed at an obstructionist Congress.

It's the Republican side of Congress that's playing childish games whenever seriously helpful legislation comes up for a vote. If they weren't eager to block anything that looks like a win for him, Obama's course might have been different.

Obama doesn't legislate by executive order, nor should he. Are his other decisions perfect? Hardly, but I can assure you they're not going to get any better with the other party, nor do we have an electable alternative within our own right now.

When people yell that Obama is weak, that he must FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT, how do they propose he handle that? He can't do Congress' job of legislating. He can only speak, he can only propose. He has limitations. When it comes down to it, Congress is the one giving most of the thumbs ups and thumbs downs.

[ClarkUSA]

105. WTF?? "white lefties... don't feel any racial bond to Obama like black lefties do"

Thanks for highlighting that bogus racist sentiment and proving Perry's point.

Funny how black folks were Bubba's most loyal voting demographic during his two terms, despite their lack of "any racial bond".

:sarcasm:

[vaberella]

109. I thought it was insightful into the OP's way of thinking.

Considering they probably scanned posts in order to choose the one that best fit their agenda.

[chill_wind]

116. I'd agree. That's a really disgusting ignorant statement. Some of

his very harshest critics anywhere, from the beginning in fact, can be found on the unapologetic black left. If the commenter, for possible instance, is a teabagger, he wouldn't be vaguely aware of the black lefty political commentary at places like The Black Agenda Report. I'm pretty sure they didn't much like the Big Dawg, either. But I would defy anyone to call them racists for that.

[flamingdem]

106. More right wing meme here about Obama's "weakness"

...heard the same shit spouted on CNN yesterday.

This time by frustrated "lefties" with a bone to pick and products to sell.

[ProSense]

110. It

doesn't take much to prove that Perry's assessment was spot on!

[Vinca]

113. I was stewing about this little brouhaha during the night and I wondered

how nonwhite lefties might feel if someone wrote an article and said they must be racist because they support everything Obama does 100%, no questions asked, and that's not the way it was during the(fill in the blank with any white president) administration when they complained. The article completely changed my opinion of Melissa Harris-Perry.

[Empowerer]

123. Actually, black folk are accused all the time of supporting Barack Obama just because he's black

This has been going on since 2007.

Of course, it completely ignores the fact that black voters support white candidates and politicians all of the time, often even against other black candidates.

It's unfortunate that, by expressing an opinion on one topic that you happen to disagree with, Professor Harris-Perry has "completely changed your opinion" about her. I don't assume that every commentator is going to agree with me on every topic - and the fact that they express a differing opinion rarely changes my opinion about them.

But, to each his own. And obviously this is a topic that provokes rather visceral and fierce reactions from some people. So be it.

[Supersedeas]

139. visceral ownership is a complicated notion

MHP's visceral reaction to Cornell West is akin to her visceral reaction to so-called and yet to be specified white progressive critics of the President--a visceral reaction akin to those who might criticize an authoritarian pastor.

http://uppitynegronetwork.com/2011/05/19/the-rage-of-black-academia-melissa-harris-perry-and-cornel-west-a-collegiate-connundrum/

<<Harris-Perry’s support of Obama reminds me of the strange relationship seen in churches with an authoritarian pastor. The hope is for a benevolent dictatory, but dictator nonetheless. One who we support in public and mildly criticize behind closed doors. I am reminded of a quote from Ricky Jones’ What’s Wrong With Obamamania? Black America, Black Leadership and the Death of Political Imagination published prior to Obama’s victory. Jones says of the Black Church that


The black community, maybe more than any other, is affectively linked to churches and their pastors to the degree that criticism of either (no matter how rational) is often viewed as nothing short of an attack on God…Unfortunately, black ministers (be they emancipators or collaborators in oppression) are often protected from secular intellectual confrontation by the almost certain ire of their flocks, which is heaped upon any critic who questions their leaders’ decisions and/or motivations.”

If we supposed Obama as a pastor, and the black community, steeped in an ecclesiastical leadership mindset, as the congregation of a church, then we’d see some stark parallels. For many of us, anything that was seen as a detriment or a derailment to Obama as a candidate or as president was to be handled in house and as to not air dirty laundry.>>

Like Cornell West, when white liberals start to air their grievances, MHP won't hestitate to sling the racist accusation their way, the same way she slung harsh words toward West and Smiley, even if MHP's harshness lacks substance to justify the need to lash out in such blanket terms. Really, does anyone really believe that a second vote for Obama will equate to something close to "salvific" in the complicated scorekeeping that MHP's accounts when thinking about the contributions of white progressives? One has to wonder why she even brought it up.

In fact, there may be legitimate points underlying those who would disapprove of some of the President's policy decisions. The points are easily dismissed by the visceral barbs of the racist charge--another little something left undiscussed and undistringuished. But, should the President's liberal critics air those criticisms publicly (in West's case) (or for whities even privately in polls, I suppose}, then be prepared for those who will lash out viscerally in ways that are neither justified nor proportional. If you are scorekeeping, you can count on that.

Oh, and don't expect any justification to follow the broad ambiguous statements about racist white progressives. "Maybe, maybe she is not talking about you specifically, maybe." Of course, she was only talking about the entire community of white liberals specifically--the rest was couched in ambiguous poll numbers. Meanwhile, the vague blanket of unspecificy in the racist charge is just left there to linger...and to silence. There are some houses where we were once invited, that we are no longer allowed to enter. Tenure at Princeton for instance.

But to each, to theirs and theirs to own and theirs to stereotype in the most blanket reactionary terms, I suppose--as "their" (and their claims of ownership combined) form a lever that will reshape the progressive community to be redefined by accusations and silence in the face of calls for justification and accountability.

What's to handle?

[Fuddnik]

115. Kick and Rec!

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fuddnik]

127. +1000

[Number23]

130. This post is so idiotic that I have to wonder what the hell you were even thinking

Obama is actually a white man. He was raised as a white man by this one white parent. And the laws of the quadroon no longer apply, except in your own mind.

You need to meet black people. You need to TALK to black people. You need to KNOW black people.

Obama describes himself as a black man. His MOTHER described him as a black man. You and your BS about "quadroons" need to join the 21st century where more and more and more bi-racial black people are considering themselves solely black based on their love and appreciation for black culture as well as the amount of racism they experience from folks who see black/brown skin and could give less than a damn that one parent was white.

Bi-racial blacks have ALWAYS been considered black in this country. This hoopla among white folks that somehow the president is falsely considering himself a black man is one of the most manufactured pieces of bullshit I've seen in a long time. If JoJo down the block has a black daddy and white mama and considers himself black, no one cares. But for the president to do the same, he is somehow a "fake" applying "quadroon" laws. It's obvious you don't even know what a damn "quadroon" really is.

I also want to note that this "Obama's not really black" crap is something I am REPEATEDLY hearing from the mouths of "liberals." The same folks who try to pretend that "Racism is alive and well in the US but it is just a whisper in the liberal left."

I just want to thank you with all of my heart for proving Melissa Harris Perry's point. You and the idiot who "+1000" your post are precisely the type of individuals that she is speaking about.

[Bobbie Jo]

131. +1000

WTF? WTF? WTF?

[Empowerer]

132. Isn't it interesting that, until now, anybody w/a drop of black blood who called themselves black

is assumed to be and is treated as black . . .

Until now . . .

Until Barack Obama . . .

As my aunt said during the campaign, "That child is black as he can be, no matter who is mother is. Just about every black person I know has as much white blood in them as he does - and most of them could never claim to be anything close to being half African like he can. White folks have insisted for centuries that the littlest bit of black makes us black, black, black. My mother was white, but that didn't mean anything to them and they would have beaten me right off the bus if I tried to sit up in the front because my mother was white.

"But all of a sudden now that we have a Barack Obama, they're trying to take him away from us, claiming he's not really black because his mother was white. Well, all I can say is 'YOU CAN'T HAVE HIM!' He's ours.

"Don't get mad at me. I didn't make the rules. You did. Now stick to them."

[treestar]

133. +1000

We have a black President. No amount of rationalization will avoid that. Sorry racists. :no pity:

[Number23]

135. Thank your aunt for me

Because if this doesn't break down all of this "Obama's not really black" stupidity, I don't know what will:

"My mother was white, but that didn't mean anything to them and they would have beaten me right off the bus if I tried to sit up in the front because my mother was white."

I have known too many bi-racial kids in my life. And damn near every one of them were the most radical, militant pro-black people I've known and partly it was because that despite having one white parent, that white parent offered them NO PROTECTION from racism. They came to the painful realization that their skin color mattered more than anything else just like everyone else black does in this country.

I posted an article in the AA forum a year ago that noted the large numbers of biracial blacks who only considered themselves black. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=258x10908 You can tell from the tone of the article and the responses that this is old news in the black community.

It's obviously news to some folks, but it's not news to us.

[MerryBlooms]

143. We sell ourselves short if we refuse to recognize

the racist biases in our media. Sometimes when a duck looks and sounds like a duck, it's a duck. We're better off recognizing our ducks, than pretending those ducks are imaginary or try to lay the freakish blame onto those who recognize the ducks. There's an obvious racist element and it's a shame so many would rather hide their heads than face reality. :*(

[elana i am]

144. in some cases she might be right

but as a general rule i think she's wrong.

that said, i also think the people whining about obama not being progressive enough are out in lala land at this point.

i am a progressive but i take the rational approach. there isn't a progressive in this world that could have done any better of a job as president than obama has. in fact, i think he's done a remarkable job considering what he has had to contend with. ***edited to amend this: "there isn't a progressive in this world who could have done a better job" means assuming a progressive could actually get elected which i don't believe could happen in this current political climate.***

not only that, but i think other progressives have way way overestimated the level of progressiveness and liberalism in the general population. a liberal does not a progressive make and a dem does not a liberal make. not only that but there's a shitload of ignorance to contend with.

my evidence, anectdotal as it is, suggests that even some "liberals" think obama has gone too far. my formerly very dem family are all concerned that obama is a socialist.

i would also argue that anyone who thought obama was or ever has been a progressive and voted for him for that reason had just as distorted a view of obama then as my democratic relatives do now.

[SidDithers]

156. You pick this quote...

" if white lefties are actually abandoning Obama, it's because they're finally sick and tired of centrist policies from Democratic presidents, and because they don't feel any racial bond to Obama like black lefties do."

to show that reactions to the MHP article are not about race.

Good job. :rofl:

Sid